Literature DB >> 23690133

Ethics of using language editing services in an era of digital communication and heavily multi-authored papers.

George A Lozano1.   

Abstract

Scientists of many countries in which English is not the primary language routinely use a variety of manuscript preparation, correction or editing services, a practice that is openly endorsed by many journals and scientific institutions. These services vary tremendously in their scope; at one end there is simple proof-reading, and at the other extreme there is in-depth and extensive peer-reviewing, proposal preparation, statistical analyses, re-writing and co-writing. In this paper, the various types of service are reviewed, along with authorship guidelines, and the question is raised of whether the high-end services surpass most guidelines' criteria for authorship. Three other factors are considered. First, the ease of collaboration possible in the internet era allows multiple iterations between the author(s) and the "editing service", so essentially, papers can be co-written. Second, "editing services" often offer subject-specific experts who comment not only on the language, but interpret and improve scientific content. Third, the trend towards heavily multi-authored papers implies that the threshold necessary to earn authorship is declining. The inevitable conclusion is that at some point the contributions by "editing services" should be deemed sufficient to warrant authorship. Trying to enforce any guidelines would likely be futile, but nevertheless, it might be time to revisit the ethics of using some of the high-end "editing services". In an increasingly international job market, awareness of this problem might prove increasingly important in authorship disputes, the allocation of research grants, and hiring decisions.

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23690133     DOI: 10.1007/s11948-013-9451-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics        ISSN: 1353-3452            Impact factor:   3.525


  34 in total

1.  Geographic variation in the number of authors on scientific abstracts.

Authors:  Y Hama; S Kusano
Journal:  Can Assoc Radiol J       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 2.248

2.  Proliferation of authors on research reports in medicine.

Authors:  Joost P H Drenth
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  1996-10       Impact factor: 3.525

3.  Molecular structure of nucleic acids; a structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid.

Authors:  J D WATSON; F H CRICK
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1953-04-25       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  European Medical Writers Association (EMWA) guidelines on the role of medical writers in developing peer-reviewed publications.

Authors:  Adam Jacobs; Elizabeth Wager
Journal:  Curr Med Res Opin       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 2.580

5.  Do medical journals provide clear and consistent guidelines on authorship?

Authors:  Elizabeth Wager
Journal:  MedGenMed       Date:  2007-07-19

6.  Inflated numbers of authors over time have not been just due to increasing research complexity.

Authors:  Stefania I Papatheodorou; Thomas A Trikalinos; John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2008-03-10       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 7.  Authorship and responsibility in health sciences research: a review of procedures for fairly allocating authorship in multi-author studies.

Authors:  Elise Smith; Bryn Williams-Jones
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2011-02-11       Impact factor: 3.525

8.  Those who have the gold make the evidence: how the pharmaceutical industry biases the outcomes of clinical trials of medications.

Authors:  Joel Lexchin
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2011-02-15       Impact factor: 3.525

9.  How industry uses the ICMJE guidelines to manipulate authorship--and how they should be revised.

Authors:  Alastair Matheson
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2011-08-09       Impact factor: 11.069

10.  Being the ghost in the machine: a medical ghostwriter's personal view.

Authors:  Linda Logdberg
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2011-08-09       Impact factor: 11.069

View more
  3 in total

1.  A quantitative perspective on ethics in large team science.

Authors:  Alexander M Petersen; Ioannis Pavlidis; Ioanna Semendeferi
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2014-06-12       Impact factor: 3.525

2.  Resolving authorship disputes by mediation and arbitration.

Authors:  Zen Faulkes
Journal:  Res Integr Peer Rev       Date:  2018-11-16

3.  Intellectual contributions meriting authorship: Survey results from the top cited authors across all science categories.

Authors:  Gregory S Patience; Federico Galli; Paul A Patience; Daria C Boffito
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-01-16       Impact factor: 3.240

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.